It's almost like there are three levels, and I'm on the second one. First, there are people who only see rules that have to be obeyed, and don't understand the relationship between these rules, or how they form a coherent system. Second, there are people like me, who comprehend that there are rules, and understand the connections/threads between them within that particular system itself, and have an idea of why the system is desirable, but don't understand how things that aren't technically part of the system connect to and modify parts of it. Finally, there are people who can see several systems as part of an entirety, and comprehend how all of them affect one another, and what is desirable or undesirable on a higher level.

It sounds like a recapitulation of Kohlberg's levels of moral awareness.

1. Courage - How pathetic do you have to be to have courage? It's just stupid to take risks so that people will admire that, or out of some screwed up sense that you owe people something. It is so pathetic and disgusting to need like that, and to do something so absurd, meaningless, and predictable to fulfill it. You should always flee danger unless it corners you, and then do everything you can against it no matter how underhanded. It's foolish to be bound by something as absurd as a sense of courage.

Doing things to gain the acceptance of others IS stupid, you're right. But that's not what courage is, and it's not why I admire it. Courage is taking a risk when there's a payoff. Being yourself in spite of the possibility takes courage. You don't do it for others, you do it for your own happiness, and you can't deny the value of your happiness. All yours posts suggest you are searching for safety and peace of mind.

2. Trust - This basically the same as saying, "let people screw you over." If you trust people, they will screw you over. It's not even a matter of "if," but "when." They would be foolish not to do so if they could get away with it, in fact. You should always have a back-up plan in case they betray you, so that they can't do what ever they want with you. The easiest is to make sure that you never trust anyone unless you have something to use against them if they betray you. That will deter them. There is no trust, it's only an idea used to trick people. It doesn't do anything.

It's kinda obvious that there's a thread of paranoia in your posts, and I think it has, to a certain degree, clouded your reasoning. What you're overlooking here, again, is the benefit to be had by trusting another person. You've opened yourself to us on this forum by coming to trust us enough that we won't seek you out to punish you in any real way. By opening up, you've made friends and continued to dig into who you are. Trust, very much connected to courage, allows relationships to flourish which is one source of peace of mind.

3. Acceptance, and even building upon the disgusting nature of things as they are, accepting it as valid, even embracing it - This is the most horrifying of all. You look on all this, seeing how disgusting and miserable it is, and you dare to align yourself with that awfulness, praise it as positive regardless of it's voidness of everything that is good or right, you just praise the arbitrary chaotic mess, and speak of it's "necessity," completely ignoring everything wrong with it. You demand people to live in it, you even implore them to love it as you do.

I agree 100%. Forcing people to accept things is ridiculous and dishonest. Even saying "I will accept things today" implies that you want to change them. But, there's still wisdom in doing this genuinely. Accepting yourself on a very deep way can help alleviate a lot of the stress we put ourselves through on account of constantly seeking or fighting change, whether it be our environments or our minds. This isn't something you can really appreciate unless you've experienced it, and it isn't something you can really imagine either. It's a major shift in being that I've had the pleasure to experience on a few occasions.

A recent argument brought this idea on about myself and how I perceive things. I really don't get how the rest of you make decisions. There are plenty of people who think like I do that I encounter regularly, but there are also people (especially here) who make decisions based on something I can't even see.

It seems to be something like this. I assess each action independently against a set of rules I've developed or that have been handed to me, as well as against all the consequences that I'm aware could exist for that action. So when I act, that's what I take into account.

But many of the rest of you think in a way that I can't even relate to. You seem to see something that I can't see, by which a person's collective actions and your perception of their nature modify the consequences of an individual action. It's as if you see some kind of invisible "thread" linking all these actions together in a particular way, and from it you calculate what a person's intent is, whether their action is good or bad, what effect it had, and what is justified regarding the collective nature of all of that information I don't even see or process.

The problem is, I don't even see that "thread." So this is very frightening to me because I feel like things are being judged by something that I can't even comprehend. And if I can't comprehend what I am being judged by, how can I hope to avoid negative consequences for my actions? How can I even know if I'm doing something wrong? Do I just have to hope other people will tell me before I make them too angry, and then try to follow their prescriptions without even understanding them? That seems to be the only way to live... just try to avoid doing anything that might irritate someone, never trust them if there's even the slightest chance they could use it against you, and hope you remember all of their preferences so that you don't say anything that makes them mad. I won't enjoy living that way all of the time (although it would be fine for a while), but I don't really see an alternative.

So basically, I want to know if someone can explain how you draw these threads between actions, and if there's a consistent pattern by which I can predict which threads are likely to be drawn between actions. Or is it something you just have to "get," and you're out of luck if you don't get it?

I am tempted to start reading this thread from the beginning because it sounds interesting and heated, but I want to add my virgin perspective before absorbing all the posts-

1. I know what you mean by 'invisible threads'. I've used a similar analogy in the past to describe Ne, which is where I think it comes from--different events (objects, actions, etc) have some kind of intrinsic linkage between one another. The analogy I'd used before was that an Ne world is like a bunch of nodes with pipes connecting between them, the "nodes" being discrete concepts or objects, the "pipes" representing the nature by which nodes relate to one another. Not sure if this is an accurate analogy, but from my perspective it seems to make sense.

2. "You seem to see something that I can't see, by which a person's collective actions and your perception of their nature modify the consequences of an individual action" -- I see this as something like a continual "keeping score" process, whereby each action an individual does changes some invisible scoreboard my brain maintains.

To approach this from another standpoint, consider this:

At any point in time, while observing or considering the state of something or someone, we have a nearly infinite montage of possibilities of what discrete sequences of events could happen next. Once an action is observed, however, you can immediately discount all possibilities that do NOT include this action happening first--thus, the scope of possible patterns one's mind continually seeks to predict the future (probably for the purpose of preparing oneself, to prepare for adapting to what could change) is narrowed. The more time goes on, and the more you know about what a person is doing and what they've done in the past, the more your brain draws a pattern of what they're most likely to do later. These patterns are learned as a matter of life experience. As you learn more and more patterns, you get these "a-ha, I bet I know what happens next" revelations more frequently until they're not even special to you anymore, just a natural fact of life. But that database of patterns is appended by life experience.

Doing things to gain the acceptance of others IS stupid, you're right. But that's not what courage is, and it's not why I admire it. Courage is taking a risk when there's a payoff. Being yourself in spite of the possibility takes courage. You don't do it for others, you do it for your own happiness, and you can't deny the value of your happiness. All yours posts suggest you are searching for safety and peace of mind.

I find it hard to admire courage, though. It really does seem like it's harmful. Why is it better to take risks and hurt people to get what you want? I don't think it is. I just don't see aggressively going after something you want without considering the consequences to be a positive thing worthy of praise, just because it succeeded.

It's kinda obvious that there's a thread of paranoia in your posts, and I think it has, to a certain degree, clouded your reasoning. What you're overlooking here, again, is the benefit to be had by trusting another person. You've opened yourself to us on this forum by coming to trust us enough that we won't seek you out to punish you in any real way. By opening up, you've made friends and continued to dig into who you are. Trust, very much connected to courage, allows relationships to flourish which is one source of peace of mind.

You say I've trusted you and people imply I've made myself vulnerable, but I don't understand how. I'm not in a situation where you could physically harm me, be forced to associate with you against my will, or even be financially ruined by you. What kind of trust are you talking about? Nothing bad could happen.

I also think that there is no reason to make yourself more vulnerable to people than necessary, or attempting to minimize that vulnerability. Trust isn't a good reason for not minimizing vulnerability.

I agree 100&#37;. Forcing people to accept things is ridiculous and dishonest. Even saying "I will accept things today" implies that you want to change them. But, there's still wisdom in doing this genuinely. Accepting yourself on a very deep way can help alleviate a lot of the stress we put ourselves through on account of constantly seeking or fighting change, whether it be our environments or our minds. This isn't something you can really appreciate unless you've experienced it, and it isn't something you can really imagine either. It's a major shift in being that I've had the pleasure to experience on a few occasions.

What I find disgusting is taking the inconsistent and tasteless nature of how people are, and acting as if it's automatically the right way because it's here. That may be how things are, but I don't see any reason to see the way things are as good/justified. I'm just not willing to consider the arbitrary and chaotic mess of human nature to be good and desirable, not matter how much people insist that it is. I never will. That isn't the same as not acknowledging it's existence, though, which is what people seem to think I'm doing. I will take any available course of action that results in my well-being when cornered, you can count on that. But otherwise, I'll attempt to follow rules as closely as possible.

I find it hard to admire courage, though. It really does seem like it's harmful. Why is it better to take risks and hurt people to get what you want? I don't think it is. I just don't see aggressively going after something you want without considering the consequences to be a positive thing worthy of praise, just because it succeeded.

What's the downside if someone makes a positive gain in the end for standing up? Who is to say the consequenses are not considered? Maybe they did take the consequenses into account and thought they were worth the price.

Why does it have to be you against the world? What fills you with such animosity? All of your hatred seems to stem from self-loathing. Instead of looking to change the world via preaching, look inward. It might be just as hard to change the world as it is to come to terms with who you really are and why you do the things you do, but the latter is the only path that will give you a lasting sense of self-esteem that comes from something real and meaningful.

I find it hard to admire courage, though. It really does seem like it's harmful. Why is it better to take risks and hurt people to get what you want? I don't think it is. I just don't see aggressively going after something you want without considering the consequences to be a positive thing worthy of praise, just because it succeeded.

The fallacy is that you are just imagining the consequences. In order to find out the real consequences, you must risk. There are any number of things that can happen. Life can surprise you. You might be imagining negative consequences where there are none. You cannot assume that your projections are correct. That's why you have to take a chance. That's courage. No one here is saying to jump in front of a bus because it's courageous and it might not kill you. You take risks for the things that you want that are important to you. You take risks in relationships or you put in your resume for the job you want, even though there are others you think might have a better chance. Life rewards people who are courageous, even though there may be setbacks and obstacles.

You say I've trusted you and people imply I've made myself vulnerable, but I don't understand how. I'm not in a situation where you could physically harm me, be forced to associate with you against my will, or even be financially ruined by you. What kind of trust are you talking about? Nothing bad could happen.

I also think that there is no reason to make yourself more vulnerable to people than necessary, or attempting to minimize that vulnerability. Trust isn't a good reason for not minimizing vulnerability.

This makes me really think you don't know yourself very well, and it really highlights the reason that you NEED to open yourself to other viewpoints. You take things so literally that it really highlights the lack of real-world experience. You usually just continually argue the same points instead of trying to understand, but in this thread, you've demonstrated (positive) vulnerability by exposing your own perceived gaps in logic, and you've invited others to help you see. No, we can't kill you or hurt you physically, but you've opened yourself up to us by not just putting on the mask of impenetrability. That is a really positive thing, even though you don't seem to be aware that you did it. As the thread goes on, however, you're putting the wall back up. Ah, well.

What I find disgusting is taking the inconsistent and tasteless nature of how people are, and acting as if it's automatically the right way because it's here. That may be how things are, but I don't see any reason to see the way things are as good/justified. I'm just not willing to consider the arbitrary and chaotic mess of human nature to be good and desirable, not matter how much people insist that it is. I never will. That isn't the same as not acknowledging it's existence, though, which is what people seem to think I'm doing. I will take any available course of action that results in my well-being when cornered, you can count on that. But otherwise, I'll attempt to follow rules as closely as possible.

You forget that people make the rules in the first place. Fallible, imperfect people. People who make mistakes and break their own rules from time to time. People who use their OWN JUDGEMENT to determine what's best for society and their fellow men. It's ironic that you cling to these rules as if they were separate from the people who made them.

At no point in the history of the world have there been perfect people living out a Utopian society where everyone obeyed every rule, all the time. There have been a few societies where rules were enforced to a terrible, damaging degree, and I don't think any sane person wants to return to that "ideal."

You can continue to live the way you are, but gosh, it really pains me to know that that's what you're choosing for yourself. You're making life so much harder than it has to be.

I find it hard to admire courage, though. It really does seem like it's harmful. Why is it better to take risks and hurt people to get what you want? I don't think it is. I just don't see aggressively going after something you want without considering the consequences to be a positive thing worthy of praise, just because it succeeded.

Of course you should consider the consequences! Courage is not the end. It's a means to an end, and it's always wise to calculate whether that end is beneficial of detrimental. Why do you assume people will get hurt? I don't follow your logic.

Take an end like peace of mind. We can agree that peace of mind is a positive end that tends to benefit both the person and his social circle in most cases, as it tends to come with empathy and compassion. Good. If you examine your life, you may find that the times that bring you peace are when you can act like yourself without worrying about how you're acting. If you disagree, tell me. If you agree, then consider what worrying is -- a fear that something bad will happen. When it comes to being yourself, it's a fear that something bad will happen when you let down your guard. You lose control and open the door to all sorts of things. It takes courage to say "you know what? I think I'll be okay even if all these bad things happen to me." Who's getting hurt here?

You say I've trusted you and people imply I've made myself vulnerable, but I don't understand how. I'm not in a situation where you could physically harm me, be forced to associate with you against my will, or even be financially ruined by you. What kind of trust are you talking about? Nothing bad could happen.

Okay, fair point. However, you can still see the benefit of trust. In the case of MBTIc, you've been able to open up because you feel protected on account of your distance and anonymity. When you're close-up and vulnerable, trust is what gives you that same space to open up, explore, and befriend others. Point being that there's value in trust.

I also think that there is no reason to make yourself more vulnerable to people than necessary, or attempting to minimize that vulnerability. Trust isn't a good reason for not minimizing vulnerability.

Trust isn't the reason, it's the tool. I would tend to agree that it doesn't make much sense to make yourself more vulnerable than is necessary, but what is necessary, and what are you trying to accomplish? If it's real friendship that you seek (and I think you probably do) then vulnerability is a necessary element. By vulnerability, I don't mean you expose your wounds. I simply mean that you let down your guard and take the risk of being yourself and being castigated for that.

What I find disgusting is taking the inconsistent and tasteless nature of how people are, and acting as if it's automatically the right way because it's here. That may be how things are, but I don't see any reason to see the way things are as good/justified. I'm just not willing to consider the arbitrary and chaotic mess of human nature to be good and desirable, not matter how much people insist that it is. I never will. That isn't the same as not acknowledging it's existence, though, which is what people seem to think I'm doing. I will take any available course of action that results in my well-being when cornered, you can count on that. But otherwise, I'll attempt to follow rules as closely as possible.

Eh. I would agree with you that considering what is here to be "good" is fallacious thinking. With that said, I don't think acceptance means seeing things as justified or good. It simply means seeing it. Period. You're still stuck in value judgments, and acceptance refrains from those judgments. As soon as you make a judgment, even calling something "good," you're already implying the non-acceptance of bad. Same goes for "justified." I would argue that this is shallow acceptance, or not acceptance at all.